So it sounds like Poly bushings and cheap lighter rims
are really the way to go to save bunches of money,
and get even better performance than these control-arms
since you'll save tens of pounds vs. 4 pounds.

Of course, I'm probably missing something here. I'm
no expert on suspention designs.

Peter says "The torque-steer is almost gone"
Here are several links to information about torque-steer,
and it looks like they all mention worn-out bushings, so that
might be just the ticket.
Link1
Link2
Link3
None actually mention the weight of the control arm.

Does anyone know who sells just the bushings?

_________________

 

Thanks for the info Peter,

I guess I'm just surprised that a savings of 3.75lbs per control arm could make that much of a difference. Well there are also the bushings...

I know that you have said that the new arms are not stronger than the stock arms but are they stiffer? Part of the performance improvement as well as the discussion, is focused on the new bushings, whose purpose seems to be to remove much of the slop associated with the squashy rubber bushings on the stock arms. It would seem to me that a stiffer arm would serve this purpose as well and a tubular bracket design like you have would seem to fit the bill.

Thanks again

Chuck

 

Hey Peter, lemme throw you away from the quibble for just a moment. What I am wondering is if this $699 price tag is usual for this particular part. To me it seems like A LOT, but it doesn't look like it's a lot of material being used, or are the bushings really expensive? It seems like a fine piece to upgrade the mini with to lighten (even just partly) the unsprung weight. I know I would naturally want to get it after a few others start sharing their experience with the new feel of them, but wow, it's quite pricey. So just wondering about that, thanks.

 

>>Hi Flyboy...
>>
>>You are partially right, but stiffer bushings are not the the panacea for better handling.
>>Let's look at the the best handling cars on the market, corvettes, NSX, Lotus etc.
>>
>>All those cars have light weight suspension components, mostly aluminum. In the racecar world
>>light weight is the name of the game from the lowliest formula Ford to the most exotic Le Mans racer.
>>

here we go again.....no, i'm not partially right, i'm totally right; trippy's conclusion about the relative benefits is correct; you're putting words in my mouth.

- i said that where you lighten the suspension components makes a difference in how effective the weight reduction is. this is basic engineering and physics; what's wrong with that? do you have enough of a technical background to understand what i said?

- i never denied that lighter unsprung weight is better, all other things being equal. i never said that stiffer bushings are a panacea. my comment about YOUR claims of "better feel" IN A MCS being due the bushings is based on the relative effects of wimpy bushings vs. a small relative reduction in unsprung weight.

- just as stiffer bushings are not a panacea, neither is just light unsprung weight. a suspension designed for good handling is required.

flyboy2160

 

I understand That this is not your first uppgrade, nor your second or third in the suspesion/wheel uppgrade.
Wheels first, Shocks second and swaybar third. And I'm also not saying that bushing uppgrades are not a good idea.
This is a fantastic uppgrade taking the experienc and the performance to the next level.

The price......$699 yes it's not cheap, but beleive me if you want to make a quality pcs that is strong for the long haul
and that's fits within half a mm or better with repeatabillity, or conical bushings that seats the arm perfectly.
Or the Bronze bushings that has to be machined to very tight tolerances to fit the rotating end etc etc etc.
Or what about taking the arms on and of a bizilion times until you hate the bastards

 

 

is that hydraulic fluid thats leaked everywhere? power steering pump? or from the brakes? if this breaks does the entire wheel come loose?

 

Holy crap, scary ^@#W!

 

I believe that's grease from the CV joint, due to the axle pulling out when the arm broke. BTW, that's not my car but it belongs to a friend of mine who cannot post here or have links put in to his posts. Those definitely don't look like

 

NM !

damn that is wicked scary !

 

More pics of the carnage:

 

ScottinBend,

You may want to delete that link. I posted it last night and it caused this thread to be put in Under Review overnight until the link was removed and this thread re-appeared this morning.

 

As a reminder, posting messages from or linking to messages from banned members is a violation of the site guidelines, all such links will be removed by the moderation staff...

However in all fairness, and to avoid the forth coming allegations of "vendor favoritism" and "conflicts of interest"

The link that was removed tells the story of the photo that Andy posted.

They have the part in question installed on their car and it broke, just like it was shown in the picture. The driver realized that there was a problem and quickly and safely stopped the car. There was no injuries and based on the post, no other damage to the car. The person who made the post doesn't believe M7 will warranty the failed part.

I don't know if they will or not, nor do I know what if any conversations that the person who experienced this failure has had with the folks at M7...

 

Hmmmmm..........

A little draconian isn't it? What are you afraid of?

 

Maybe, but we have had instances of banned members using other member's as "mouthpieces" and it's due to the past behavior of those members that we've had to institute such "draconian" measures.

However, regardless of the who this incident happened to, there's no reason the story itself couldn't be posted. Either way though, this thread does not exist to discuss NAM's policy's regarding banned members. If you want to discuss the failure that Andy posted about go right ahead.

This isn't an issue of taking sides for or against a vendor. If it was, this thread would have been handled much differently, and more importantly the photos that Andy posted or the explanation of those photos wouldn't be here.

Discuss the failure, discuss M7's response or lack of response to the failure. But do not link back to posts or threads on other forums that belong to banned members.

 

I have brought up the question of mfg.'s liability before; In my biz, I have to maintain a $2mil liability insurance policy. It is naive to think the mfg responsibility ends with replacing the broken part; that is merely the tip of the iceberg. How many of you replacing your critical suspension components ask if the mfg maintains liability insurance?

here is an example of a rear arm failure...scary potential:
[quote=kyriian]one of our club members lost his car because of the exact same reason....be thankful you are on the driveway, my friend was at circuit tremblant when his arm snapped..... his car flipped immediately after it broke about 4 rolls before his car lay top down onto grass....[/quote

 

Looks like it is time to tell our side of the story. The part in question was on a twin chagred car with a claimed 300 + hp. The part was designed and constructed by a very well known chassis and suspension expert Steen Chassis ( http://www.steenchassis.com/) for shall we say more " normal " Mini Cooper S's. Perhaps the issue has more to do with how the car was used and the other modifications rather than Steen making a faulty part. With this in mind we will no longer sell this part to anyone using a twin charge system. As for the warrenty issue the part was bought well over a year ago which puts it outside of our warenty window.

Randy
M7 Tuning

http://www.steenchassis.com/

 

Randy,

You seem to be bringing up the role of Steen Chassis in this most unfortunate incident. Are you suggesting that M7 has no responsibility for product liability? What if someone had been injured or killed as a result of the breakage of the control arm? Your employer might have a very difficult time in court if there had been either bodily injury or death.

I remember when the product was developed and released to the public, and I don't recall any mention of the type of car (cf. your reference to "more normal" MCS), the working load or the load tolerances for the control arms. Has your company ever revealed any of the specs for this product, aside from weight?

Interestingly, I was going to get these control arms when they originally were released; however, I decided against that because I never thought I would do the kind of performance driving that required the reduction in weight and putative benefit that was being proposed by M7. While I admit to having made some poor decisions in my life, this was not one of them ---

 

"You seem to be bringing up the role of Steen Chassis in this most unfortunate incident. Are you suggesting that M7 has no responsibility for product liability? What if someone had been injured or killed as a result of the breakage of the control arm? Your employer might have a very difficult time in court if there had been either bodily injury or death. "

I never said that we had no liability with the product just that i find it unlikely that a company such as Steen chassis would ever make a less than adequate part.

"I remember when the product was developed and released to the public, and I don't recall any mention of the type of car (cf. your reference to "more normal" MCS), the working load or the load tolerances for the control arms. Has your company ever revealed any of the specs for this product, aside from weight? "

We are under no obligation to release those specs . When the product was designed by Steen it was for the Mini cooper S not a Twin charged mini. Had the T/C been my car and knowing the added torque and HP gains incurred common sense would have dictated that I remove them and more than likely added strength to the stock parts rather than go with a lighter than standard unit. We have never sold them to a Twin Charged car and would not do so. The fact that the car was modified to that extent well after purchase was something we could not control.


"Interestingly, I was going to get these control arms when they originally were released; however, I decided against that because I never thought I would do the kind of performance driving that required the reduction in weight and putative benefit that was being proposed by M7. While I admit to having made some poor decisions in my life, this was not one of them --- [/QUOTE] "


Bob I could't agree with you more . With as many times as you have gone off the track they never would have held up. Hell I think Steve still has some of your bent stock pieces laying around Have a good one

Randy
m7 Tuning

 

You dont have to be the manufacturer to get sued.As far as liability and insurance is concerned 2 million is pretty standard these days for all small businesses.If you touch a part by supplying or installing you are on the hook if there is a normal failure.Where it gets sticky if the part is designed for highway use or racing only.You cant hide behind a suspension part failing on a street car unless its been abused ie driven into a curb or thru a ditch and then it failed.Who is the engineer going to blame for the failure, himself or the driver or mechanic that installed his companys hot part.A manufacturer bares responsibility for the part if it fails in normal use.Im sure that if it was a part I supplied or installed I would be getting hold of the failed part and analyize the failure to limit my liability, not telling the customer it is out of warranty.The part has to be engineered for its intended use,not for a 1 year warranty.Im in business in a non related field but product liability is one of the biggest concerns right now .

 

whith a griggs street set up. He's had problems with people putting the street parts on cars that track, and experience failure and the like. For example, the A arms that I run aren't the ones that go on the race cars. Nor is the torque arm. And they do use FEA and all the tools for the design. But if you're gonna put almost twice the HP, maybe run some R compount rubber and the like, you're gonna create more force on lots of parts of the car. That's the way it works....

Matt

 

I can see having a massive failure on a drive shaft or transmission but not on a suspension part.The drive shaft and transmission take most of the torque so you would see them failing with what ever hp the sc turbo is puting out first.I dont see Mini s transmissions or drive shafts failing with this hp .The point is if you supply a part for street use, a suspension part thats being used primarily for street use ,it has to stand up to things like hitting curbs pot holes etc.If it snaps without any signs of bending, its either a defective design or a bad weld or bad material its all within the manufacturers control.This is the reason auto manufacturers put the disclaimer that racing voids the warranty.Did this manufacturer state that his suspension part cannot be used for racing or in conjunction with a 2--? hp sc turbo kit?Again if you are going to supply the after market high performance market you would expect the product to be better than the oem design.Whats the point in saving 3 lbs with a part for street use if its going to fail within 1 year of street use.

 

M7,
But apparently this is not the only one that failed. Anymore info on the others that had a problem? And are you still selling these arms?

 

To our knowledge there have been NO other customer failures.If a M7 customer has had a problem with these items please give us a call. We have only sold a handfull and they are not listed on our site as a regular item. They would be special order only at this time. At the time these arms were designed Twin Charged cars were not a reality. If Steen was going to make a set for that type of car I am sure there would be changes to the design and materials..

Randy
m7 Tuning

 

I can see your point to a degree if in fact these control arms are not meant for use in a high HP application or if they've been used in some manner outside their intended use.

That said, when your suspension components suffer catastrophic failure, it erodes my confidence in M7. And by electing to dismiss the failure without even attempting to have the part examined to determine the cause, we're left to wonder whether the part was defective, or if it simply was not up to the task.

I look forward to hearing a better response than what we've seen so far. One thing is sure, suspension components that fail in this manner are not for me. Now would be a good time to: a) find out why the part failed & b) publish the specifications for the part to restore confidence in it's quality and suitability for use.


This might not be the right time to be so cavalier. If someone had been seriously injured or worse, all the in the world would not make it right. Just because there's a history of animosity between M7 and the "banned member" doesn't excuse such a poor response to this situation.

M7 sells a great many very desirable products. Please act responsibly to restore our trust.